|
MindSpy -> (3/7/2001 3:30:00 PM)
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
THe command system is something we aren;t going to muck with, right now the intent is simply to get you to think about your units in platoon sized chunks and to "vector" them where you want them to go. The "confusion" that results when you run out of commands and your troops are "stuck" reflects in a simple but graphic way that you often get your troops in to situations that are tough to get out of. Players always want "max efficiency, that real troops could never deleiver!
As to not backing up without issuing orders - We assume that troops instantly know to do the "right thing" when "the plan" goes in the crapper...just doesn't happen and the feeling that you "lost control" at a critical juncture and can't get the troops to do the exact things you want must have been a common feeling on the battlefield. I'm sure WWII battalion commanders would want a nickel for everytime they looked through the binoculars and said under their breath - "for God's sake retreat, RETREAT!! I know I said advance and take that hill, but not into THAT...
Don't look at it as trying to simulate command control per se, but indicating in a simple, but I think rather elegant way, what can happen when the plan DOESN'T come, and the chaos that occurs trying to sort it out.
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 06, 2001).]
MINDSPY
Command and Control is quite simply very elegant in the game SPWAW. There is without doubt no reason it should not be set to 'on' when you want historical results.
A formation is assigned to certain objectives and orders must be expended and objective hexes assigned to them for the player to get them there.
It takes time to change units' postures and that is why units cannot do all that the "arcade" setting of 'off' Command and Control allows.
It is essential that you know that when a tank or other unit is responsible for a unit that is larger than a platoon it cannot do the job of Command as well if it is to engage the enemy!
As well Command tanks and other AFV's generally lacked the main armament of the standard issue AFV type.
As well they contained extra radio's and personnel in the tanks. The extra radio's were largely as a result of the shorter range of the standard unit radio. To contact arty in the rear and higher HQ's also found in the rear the longer range of Command unit vehicles' radios is required and they are not normally present in the AFV's of the platoon in WW2. This is especially true of German and Soviet units.
Now as a single tank cannot carry the entire Command staff required many WW2 formations have the remainng eesential staff members following along in halftracks or trucks.
They are indded essential personnel as they have the Decoder's and other essential items required for disciplined multi-type-force-compositon co-ordination.
Not the least of which is hands on knowledge of who is where and is what in the chain of command in other units belonging to the Army group or Division or Corp or Wing or etc.
When you play with Command and Control 'on' you must remember that the movement and firing is accomplished by a limited number of units in the formation and that if you insist on having all the units move and fire including the command unit itself you are asking for trouble.
To do it succesfully you must select objectives near the formation and remain committed to keeping the unit together so as not to overwhelm the Commanding unit with having to maintain contact with the out of LineOfSight units.
It is very difficult to tell someone what to do when you cannot see them or what they have in front of them. To add the further complexity of requiring a commander to do so for many units and while under fire is quite simply a "use of poor tactics".
Should you require setting objectives to greater distances thus depriving yourself of a tactical situation where there is greater freedom of movement in 360 degrees then you are clearly dealing with the normal range of problems of Command and Control.
If you are surprised by an opponent while engaging in long swoops of movement then it is understood that many units will have great difficulty maintaining the freedom to do as they wish. They will also be very vulnerable until Command and Control has been re-established!!! Orders are orders. Without them you will have units seriously restricted in what they can do and they will generally stick to what they had been ordered to do as they are still following orders (granted that is the fundamental requirement of being a well-trained unit---however you should not confuse not being able to do all that meets the player's eye as a bad rule or setting;
given time, that is more turns, your units will if their leaders are still in good order, be able to do the other things that can correct a situaion where the sh*% has hit the fan.).
This is not only historical this is obvious.
The player may be able to see the overall general situation and know that he must respond in such and so a manner but the individual units do not have the bigger picture and cannot "do" the doing until the orders come.
Thus it is easy to see that by playing with Command and Control the players that not only recognize the movement and combat limitations of their units but also the time factor required to get them to perform the required task and movement will quite simply outperform those who see "CC" only as a hindrance lacking further insight to understand that indeed it reflects the real situation much more so then the game played with "CC" 'off' and that is why it is a Realism setting and not a General preference.
It is quite understandable that there is resistance to playing with such a well qualified Realism setting.
It requires more thought and ability then not! Playing without it is as much fun as becoming competent with Command and Control.
However, I have little sympathy for the nay-sayers as it is akin to using trucks or command cars as recon (these vehicles are very susceptable to small arms fire and they did not pursue direct fire assignmnts and their value to the parent unit as providing supply and transport was quite simply too great for them to be abused in this manner! however for game play it appears to make snense although it has no basis in the historical record), choosing whatever units are cheapest in purchase points to lead an assault, and generally believing that a platoon's units placed in widely separated areas of the map can perform the same job as purchasing a section of the same units (clearly having talented individuals for com is import but having experienced and talented individuals is even more necessary-hence depleted units have great difficulty splitting into smaller units if they do not have the trained personnel to do so! which is why there are section vs platoon units to be selected).
In summary.
Command and Control is essential if you want a greater historical feel for your games.
Command units can perform the same functions in rallying with or without the reaslism setting of "CC" turned on however you will find that your play is rewarded when you do turn the "CC" on as it is essential that your units remain in close contact for maximum effectiveness and that therefore the rallying bonuses and improved resistance to suppression related retreats and routs has increased as a result of your greater efforts to keep your units centred on the command units in the formation!
MINDSPY
|
|
|
|
